Guest column: Flag burning and free speech have consequences

Matthew Busch/Mlive.comWilliam Howerton thinks about his answer to Judge Peter Versluis' question as he is arraigned at Grandville District Court via a video conference on Monday, July 23, 2012.

GRAND RAPIDS, MI — Guest columnist R. Scot Miller says his opinion of flag burning has changed over the years.

Miller, who participated in protests during the 1988 Democratic National Convention, still believes burning a United States flag should be protected free speech. But, he says, that speech comes with consequences.

"I no longer feel that flag desecration is worthwhile expression because I realize despite my differences with government or political parties or neighbors, I love my neighbors, and would rather folks didn’t go around trying to desecrate a symbol that means so much to them," writes Miller, the director of adult education at Georgetown United Methodist Church.

Miller wrote the following guest column in response to news of a 57-year-old Grandville resident who pleaded guilty to burning flags to protest what he calls a corrupt and destructive U.S. government.

If you have a guest column of 800 words or less, please send it to grletters@mlive.com, and we will consider it for publication.

By R. Scot Miller
It was a hot summer in Atlanta in 1988. I was among a number of “radicals” who participated in mass demonstrations at the Democratic National Convention. Along with the weather that summer, there was another hot issue. Flag burning was in the news. And now, in West Michigan, it has hit the front pages.

In 1988, I was convinced that desecrating the flag was a form of political expression that should be protected. I also considered it an effective expression of rage. That summer, a member of the Revolutionary Communist Youth Brigade, Gregory “Joey” Johnson, burned a flag in Texas, where there is a known animosity toward communists. Texas pressed charges, but Johnson won his case.

R. Scot Miller

In Atlanta that summer, the DNC prepared for demonstrations, and something I’d never thought could happen did. The powers in Atlanta attempted to restrict folks to what they called a “free speech zone,” enclosed by a chain-link fence.

People took to the streets anyway. The Klan held an “opening day” demonstration at the Georgia state house.

Not only was a flag burned that day, but so were bundles of racist newspapers, Klan and confederate flags and a few trucks. In the mind of a young radical, burning a flag was protected speech. Being a Klan member — not so much. I didn’t like cross-burnings.

After an apparent lapse of flag-burnings, it’s back in the news. Rage — fueled by alcohol — led to the “protest” undertaken by a Wyoming man who pleaded guilty to misdemeanor arsons at two public sites in Ottawa County. Like others, he distrusts the government and exhibits hatred toward it.

Yet now, I feel quite a bit different about flag burning.

I still believe it should be protected speech.

However, I no longer feel it is appropriate. I am ambivalent about our neighbor burning other folks’ property, and tend to understand that they may deserve consequences.

Historically, flag-burning has not been much of an issue, outside of the 1960s.

Just a few fringe characters with a sense of cheap drama.

The local man, however, had an industrial-size case of rage. While flag-burning might be protected speech, burning government property, and another individual’s property, is not. It’s criminal, and local bans on fire because of the dry weather may not be lost on prosecutors. This man’s actions will not be forgotten by neighbors. I hope that Christian forgiveness prevails.

I no longer feel that flag desecration is worthwhile expression because I realize despite my differences with government or political parties or neighbors, I love my neighbors, and would rather folks didn’t go around trying to desecrate a symbol that means so much to them.

It’s not just an issue of anger — it hurts people to see their flag burned. It is a matter, for them, of love and patriotism.

While I continue to think such protests should be protected, there is something important often forgotten by folks. Free speech and political expression have consequences.

Other consequences of such actions are twofold. First, this individual will be an unpopular person in West Michigan. I am sure that his job prospects, social life and potential invites to neighborhood barbeques are now at risk.

More importantly, his action has wounded people and will certainly drive a wedge deeper between folks who will pretend it’s a free speech issue and others who cry out for deportation.

Our country is seeing things in red and blue, and this issue starts arguments.

Arguments over an action that is undertaken with no other reason than to hurt — like a cross-burning. For me the two are indistinguishable.

I want to end by suggesting two things.

Perhaps we should not continue to talk in terms of protected political expression, but realize that such speech incurs consequences, and that is why the onus of sacrifice should be on the speaker.

Listen, I won’t “die” for your right to do this.

There was a lot of heated discussion about how Rush Limbaugh and Bill Maher regarded women with demeaning speech. The arguments were simple — free speech is a right. While folks were arguing about the propriety of what was said, they forgot that freedoms do not exist outside of accepting potential consequences.

Because one has the right to say something does not mean that folks will let them get away with it. Ask the folks from Westboro.

The courts allowed their message, but Americans rallied with a nonviolent response that publicized a much stronger message. “We will counter your hateful acts by supporting those you marginalize.”

While I believe folks should be able to burn their flags, I also believe they should accept the consequences without hiding behind the First Amendment.

You can burn flags — and crosses, too. Just don’t complain that you are being persecuted for expressing your opinion when your neighbors suddenly don’t throw water on your burning heart. And don’t cry out that no one understands truth when you burn flags, or crosses, or protest at soldiers’ funerals.

While no one understands prophets, if truth be known, you’re not a prophet. I believe you are legally considered an arsonist. Now that’s a consequence.